The problem with nuclear power is not the primary fuel; it's the economics, especially the economics of big engineering:
http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2013/11/21/why-officia...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2014/02/20/why-the-...
This is great news. I've read about so many great nuclear projects in the past few years. Three thorium initiatives in China, India and Norway. ITER in Europe. Bussard Electrostatic Fusion. Travelling Wave Reactors. General Fusion's Steam Hammer Design. And there are many more. So it looks like an increasingly bad bet to say that they will all fail. Which is good, because we're going to need lots of energy in the future.
I went to school next to THTR-300 which was built from 1971 on and is now defunct thanks to incompetence and huge failures in crisis management.
Oak Ridge had a Thorium reactor in 1965. This is not the first.
On what planet is this the world's first thorium reactor? We had running thorium reactors in the 1950s.
Fast breeder Thorium reactors and electric cars to the people! Cheap energy and clean cars.
I'm really glad to see that the concept is starting to take off.
It makes me sad that it's not happening in the US. If some folks in the government and business don't get their heads out of their asses a growth industry is going to bypass us entirely.
Nice specs!
Where does the Thorium come from and how abundant is it?
Note that this very different to the molten salt LFTR design. With solid fuel it is very hard to prevent protactinium capturing neutrons, which means problems for breeding and waste and probably operational constraints as well. The LFTR is such a beautiful consistent design but it is very different from ordinary reactors.
Also the title is inaccurate as different thorium reactors have been designed, built and operated. See MSRE and THTR-300 for example.